































AUSTRIA 


AND 




CENTRAL ITALY. 


BY 


Z, 


MILES-THOMAS, LORD BEAUMONT, 

M;j es U 

■%fU b cc y' o v-v » 


j&econti 1ED{tton» 


i 

> > > 

•* 


> 


•tnitiunt: 


JAMES RIDGWAY, N° 169, PICCADILLY. 



MDCOCXLIX. 







LONDON: 

PRINTED BY T. BRETTELL, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET. 



« • 
ii i 


* . • 




AUSTRIA AND CENTRAL ITALY. 


That a revolution should take place in France 
is no longer a subject of wonder—that Italy should 
rise in revolt against the social and political tyranny 
of foreign and ecclesiastical governments is what 
was generally expected,—but that Metternich’s 
power should fall in an hour, and the policy of the 
Imperial cabinet vanish like a dream, not only 
baffles all previous calculation, but leaves the mind 
bewildered as to the results of so unforeseen an 
occurrence. The position of every other State is 
affected by the event; and probably no circum¬ 
stance in the long history of 1848 will produce a 
more lasting impression on the social institutions of 
the civilised world. A great principle was em¬ 
bodied in the idea of the Austrian policy, and with 
the downfal of that policy the great principle which 
sustained half the governments of Europe is defeated. 
A political theory, which partook of the nature of 
a religious creed, has been exploded, and the funda¬ 
mental dogmas of that political faith rendered 




4 


for ever after obsolete. Austria was not only the per¬ 
sonification of a paternal government, but the very 
life of the numerous institutions in other countries 
founded on that principle. Her advanced civilisa¬ 
tion lent a halo to the remains of barbarous systems, 
and in the example of Austria lay the moral strength 
of all the minor absolutisms. In Italy she was all- 
powerful : the Princes of the Peninsula were mere 
puppets, of which the Minister at Vienna held the 
strings. It was not, however, her superior physical 
force alone which made them obedient to her 
counsels, but the consciousness that without her 
countenance the principles on which they governed 
would be no longer tolerated. Her axiom was the 
maintenance of existing institutions; and, despite 
the prostrate misery of Italy, she sustained the 
doctrine that any change was bad merely because 
it was a change. Under the protection of such a 
banner the worm-eaten institutions dragged on a 
contemptible existence, while their incapable ad¬ 
ministrators never troubled their brains with the 
intellectual progress going on around them. The 
Court of Vienna was at once the key-stone of the 
political arch, and the right arm of the executive 
governments of Italy. Without the fear of Austrian 
bayonets the oppressed laity of the Pontifical States 
would long ago have thrown off the degrading 
despotism of an ecclesiastical government, while 
some thousand proscribed men of liberal education 
sighed in secret for the hour when a great social 
convulsion might open the way to their final 


delivery. Austria, however, was there at hand to 
control the political movement, and Austria herself* 
was still, to all appearance, a well-organised and 
powerful government. Many of the abuses which 
overran the rest of the Peninsula were unknown in 
her Italian provinces ; nor were the men who swayed 
her destinies like the Ministers of the Southern 
States — incompetent from habit and education. 
The wise reforms of Joseph II. had suppressed 
several of those practices which impoverish many 
Catholic countries, while the dignitaries of the 
Church were kept in due subjection to the civil 
authority. At the very time she was upholding the 
absolute authority of the Pontiff over his own 
territorial subjects, Austria would not allow either 
bull or rescript to be received within her territories 
without the sanction of the minister of police. 
Although her arms were ever ready to assist the 
chair of St. Peter to enforce its most intolerant 
decrees against its subjects, no power of Europe 
placed more severe restrictions on the Papal juris¬ 
diction within her own frontiers. The effect of 
this policy was to produce in Italy a favourable 
contrast between her people and the population 
of the smaller States; nor did she thereby expose 
herself to the charge of inconsistency, inasmuch 
as she maintained the absolutism of other 
despotic Governments, as well as prevented all 
attempts at interference with her own. Lombardy 
was, perhaps, the most flourishing of the Italian 
provinces, and, with the exception of Tuscany, its 


inhabitants were the least oppressed. The hatred 
to absolute government was not felt there with the 
same intensity as in Bologna or Rimini, nor had 
the Church of Rome lost the affections of the 
Lombards to the extent to which she had estranged 
the laity of her own States. Austria, on the whole, 
presented a favourable illustration of despotism; 
and it was evident that if she failed to make the 
system palatable, all other absolute governments 
might despair of success. To support Austria was 
to support a certain system of society; and her im¬ 
portance, as well as freedom of action, was increased 
by her position as the leader of certain opinions, 
and a successful example of their practical appli¬ 
cation. The overthrow of Metternich’s govern¬ 
ment must, therefore, be considered as the complete 
downfal of irresponsible power in Europe, rather 
than as the simple defeat of the Imperial cabinet of 
Vienna. All institutions which pretend to be 
absolute, and deny the right of free judgment; all 
establishments which require blind obedience and 
implicit confidence; every system which shuns 
public investigation, and refuses to submit its 
motives to examination ; in fine, all paternal and 
despotic forms of government, whether in civil or 
religious matters, have felt the shock which over¬ 
threw the strong and imposing fabric of Austrian 
despotism. The political were no less remarkable 
than the social results of this great event in modern 
history. Composed of many distinct nations, the 
Austrian Empire fell to pieces the moment the iron 


7 


hoop which bound it round had snapped. As long 
as the will of the Emperor was the only known 
law, obedience to it was the common tie of hostile 
races. Looking to Vienna as the centre of all 
power, and seeing in Vienna not a predominant 
people, but a single ruler, the component parts of 
the Empire felt themselves on an equality, and 
forbore to trouble themselves with internecine 
jealousies. No sooner, however, was a consti¬ 
tutional form of government spoken of for Austria 
than the questions of equal representation and 
national preponderance were raised. A more 
complete union, or a more complete separation 
between Hungary and Austria was necessary. The 
Lombards could scarcely be expected to discuss 
their affairs in the German tongue, and Bohemia 
had interests to protect distinct from those of 
Austria Proper. The Croatian as well as the 
Servian population dreaded the supremacy of 
Hungary, and demanded to be placed on an 
equality with the Magyar race. The Sclavonian 
population, albeit the cry of Panslavism had been 
raised, was still subdivided, and formed into groups 
as distinct from each other as from the German 
people. The Croats, Slowenzens, and Servians, 
stood apart from the Czechs and Moravians. The 
Poles could not be confounded with either the 
Czechs or the Illyrians; while the Wallachians, 
from their numbers, give a distinct character to 
Transylvania, which they chiefly inhabit. Seventeen 
million Sclavonians to seven million Germans would 


8 


have swamped the Austrian Representative Assembly, 
if the Representatives had been in proportion to 
the constituencies; but the Magyars and Italians, 
each amounting to about five millions, united with 
the Wallachians, would, if they had sat in the 
Imperial Diet, have counteracted the Sclavonian 
preponderance, without, however, strengthening the 
German portion of the Chamber; so that, what with 
the variety of races and the division existing even 
amongst the same race, the absolute sovereignty 
of one people could not be established, nor one 
race even obtain a positive majority. Notwith¬ 
standing this fortuitous combination, by which the 
separate influences counterbalanced each other, 
such a union became impracticable, and the cen¬ 
tralisation it would have substituted for the 
Sovereign’s will, impossible. 

During the reign of the paternal government 
no attempt had been made to reconcile these 
separate people, or remove the jealousies which 
existed between them. The distinction of origin 
had not only been preserved, but systematically 
kept apparent by partial laws and customs. To 
the rivalry of races had been added the rivalry of 
classes. In Gallicia the serf had been set up 
against the landlord, while in Hungary the land¬ 
lord had been encouraged to oppress the peasant. 
Throughout the Austrian Empire divide et imp era 
had been the maxim of the government. Circum¬ 


stances favoured the Imperial policy, and per¬ 
severance in carrying it out had rendered it for 


9 


a time successful. The servile war which drenched 
Gallicia with noble blood, cemented the central 
power of Vienna; while the judicious distribution 
of German troops in Italy, and Italian troops in 
Germany, prevented any unity of feeling in the 
townspeople and the garrisons. The Sclavonian 
population, who compose all but an absolute 
majority of the Emperor’s subjects, were neither 
geographically nor socially placed in a position 
to form a separate and compact kingdom. The 
rich plains of Central Hungary, peopled by a 
nobler and more enlightened race, intervene 
between the Transylvanians and Bohemians; while, 
thus scattered and intermixed with other races, the 
Sclavonians possess neither the spirit nor civilisation 
of their neighbour Magyars and Germans. The 
struggle for preponderance in the provinces, in¬ 
discriminately occupied by different races, would 
have weakened the combatants without injuring 
the central power of Vienna, as long as that 
power governed the provinces as mere dependencies 
of Austria, and neglected the development of local 
institutions. The absolutism of the government 
was the sole, but while it existed, all-powerful 
principle of centralisation ; the slightest relaxation, 
therefore, of the Imperial grasp was, under the 
circumstances, certain to be the signal for the 
total disruption of the Empire. Self-government 
and the preservation of local institutions are in¬ 
compatible with centralisation; and an absolute 
government is the only centralisation practicable 


10 


ill such a heterogeneous empire as Austria. The 
moment, therefore, the will of the Emperor was 
no longer the law of the land, each distinct people 
fell back on their own nationality. The intermix¬ 
ture of distinct nations in some of the provinces, 
however, had been so complicated, that while it 
in no way tended to blend the races together, it 
rendered it difficult to restore their independence 
without violating the territorial divisions of the 
country. The frontiers of each people’s land is 
not distinctly defined, and the settlers in some 
districts outnumber the original occupiers. Hence 
the inconsistency apparent in the present struggle 
of the distinct races. The Croats are wresting 
their nationality from the Hungarians, while the 
Hungarians are contending for theirs with the 
Germans. The Lombard and Venetian are en¬ 
gaged in deadly conflict with German, Hungarian, 
and Croat. The Bohemians have had a struggle, 
albeit an unsuccessful one, with the Germans; 
while the Pole is still the Ishmael of Europe, 
whose hand is against every man and every man’s 
hand is against him. National independence is 
the professed object of every party engaged in 
these struggles; yet the German is loath to leave 
the plains of Lombardy, the Hungarian to resign 
his dominion over Istria, the Moravian to let Prague 
govern Bohemia, and even the Croat will not leave 
the Germans to settle their own quarrels amongst 
themselves. 

In an empire thus distracted, and composed of 


11 


such conflicting elements, intestine wars and 
national jealousies must for a time exhaust the 
strength and prevent the development of con¬ 
stitutional institutions. Austria is at present an 
army occupying a hostile country; ten million 
Hungarians and Italians deny that they are 
Austrians; as many more Croats and Poles repu¬ 
diate the idea of being part of Germany; while 
the Viennese themselves bear ill-will to the large 
military force which overawes their city. The 
German population wish for a closer union with 
the rest of Germany, the Sclavonic anticipate a 
total separation. The Emperor is placed in a 
painful dilemma, having to choose between the 
existence of a powerful rival empire on his 
frontiers, and the certainty of offending two-thirds 
of his own subjects by submitting to the supremacy 
of a German power. If Austria holds aloof from 
German unity and takes no part in the business of 
Frankfort, Prussia and the rest of Germany will 
become more closely riveted together, and will no 
doubt constitute the power possessing the greatest 
influence in the affairs of Central Europe. The 
retirement of Austria from all participation in 
the undertaking now progressing at Frankfort, 
would throw so much weight into the Prussian 
scale, that the House of Hohenzollern would then 
be what the Imperial family has hitherto been in 
the councils of Germany. The difficulties which 
are in the way of a constitutional monarchy at 
Berlin are trifling, compared with the obstacles 


12 


which trammel every step of the Government at 
Vienna, nor is there anything in the position of 
the smaller States to make the Germans despair of 
constituting (with the assistance of Prussia), a 
powerful confederation, independent of the Austrian 
portion of Germany. If, on the other hand, the 
Emperor joins heart and hand in the construction 
of German unity, he can scarcely hope to retain 
the good will of his Sclavonic subjects. Placed 
in this dilemma, the Court of Vienna have hitherto 
turned their regards towards the Generals at the 
head of their armies as the only persons capable of 
extricating them from the difficulty. By establish¬ 
ing a military despotism, and entrusting to the 
successful commanders the interest of the Empire, 
the late feeble and helpless sovereign evaded the 
responsibility of his position, and was allowed to 
wander about his dominions as the incapable repre¬ 
sentative of an obsolete principle. Austria is now 
an open field for a successful General, and whether 
it is the Ban of Croatia or the Governor of Prague, 
he can set at defiance when he wishes the nominal 
power of the Emperor. Personal ambition may 
eventually distract the Empire as much as national 
jealousies do at present. Kossuth in Hungary, 
Windisgratz in Bohemia, Jellachich in Croatia, 
and Badetsky in Lombardy, are all powers which 
may be turned against the central government at 
Vienna, and likely, at some future period, to quarrel 
with each other. In such a state of present con¬ 
fusion, and with such prospects of future dis- 


13 


turbances, what ought to be the policy of the 
present monarch, or the conduct of his still dis¬ 
tracted people \ To restore the Empire on its 
old footing and with its former principle of centrali¬ 
sation is impossible. Lombardy ought to, and must 
eventually, form a portion of an Italian rather than 
an Austrian confederation. The separation of Hun¬ 
gary and Austria must be rendered as complete in 
respect to their administrations as it is possible to 
be without changing the person of the crown. The 
claim of a distinct nationality on the part of Croatia 
is as just as on the part of Hungary, and ought, 
therefore, to be equally respected. The boundary 
between the two countries once defined, let the 
Croats choose between sitting in a joint Diet with 
Hungary and having a voice in the Austrian Par¬ 
liament at Vienna. In the latter case they must 
become Germans, in a political sense, and be subject 
to all the vicissitudes of Germany; in the former, 
they would share the fate of Hungary, but have an 
equal share with the Hungarians in guiding her des¬ 
tinies. If unfortunately neither scheme is feasible, 
if Croatia claims a separate parliament and executive 
of her own, and has in the distracted state of the 
Empire the power to maintain her claims, Croatia, 
like Hungary and Austria Proper, must form one 
of the distinct States under the common sovereignty 
of the imperial crown, and by thus multiplying the 
small quasi-independent powers in the south-east 
of Europe, weaken the balance of power in that 


14 


quarter. The difficulty does not end here,—if 
Austria keeps up any connection with Frankfort 
the foreign provinces of the Empire must be more 
completely separated from the German portions of 
the Imperial territories. The Emperor’s name 
would then be merely the shadow of power; for the 
constitutional, if not democratic character of the 
governments in his different kingdoms and pro¬ 
vinces could scarcely be expected to leave him 
more than the mere title of sovereignty. Abso¬ 
lutism thus effectually destroyed in the Austrian 
Empire, would not be likely to revive in Italy. It 
is difficult to say what part Charles Albert, if his 
career had not been cut short at the fatal battle of 
Novara, would have played either by choice or by 
necessity in the drama of Italian revolutions. The 
crown of the whole Peninsula may have been the 
golden dream which haunted his slumber, and to 
realise his visions he might have been willing to 
play for a time the game of the democratic party. 

Italian unity is the first principle of that party, 
>• 

but to carry it out they require the co-operation of 
the Piedmontese army. Charles Albert, head of 
that army and conqueror in Lombardy, would 
not have sheathed his sword on the retreat of 
the Austrians, but probably turned it against 
those who clamour more against monarchical 
institutions than the presence of the stranger. 
His defeat, while it leaves the Austrian master 
of Milan, promotes republicanism in the other 


15 


States of Italy. A confederation of peoples, 
not of princes, with well-developed constitutional 
institution^ in each member of the union, is a 
nearer approach to the scheme of Mazzini than the 
kingdom of Northern Italy, mooted whenRadetsky 
was in Verona and Charles Albert on the Adige. 
Nay, I know not if the Austrian powers in Lombardy 
may not be the means of creating a confederation 
of constitutional States, which Italy, left to its re¬ 
sources, would have been incapable of achieving. 

One thing at least is certain, that if the Vien¬ 
nese cabinet are sincere in their professions of 
liberal opinions, the retrograde party in Italy can 
never rcassume the masterhood they once pos¬ 
sessed. The liberties given to Lombardy will be 
claimed and must be granted to Central Italy. 
Duke or Pope, no matter who is nominal sovereign, 
Florence and Rome will have as liberal a consti¬ 
tution as the most liberal of Italian States. Con¬ 
federation and similarity of institutions go natu¬ 
rally together, and all parties incline to something 
resembling a union. 

The idea is, for the moment at least, the favourite 
scheme for the Italians, and though it is in little 
accordance with their former history, they seem at 
present inclined to sink much of their mutual jea¬ 
lousies to obtain a general object. The ducal 
houses of Parma and Modena must obey the move¬ 
ment or consent to be swept away by it; the Pope 
has of his own accord absconded from Rome, and, 
by the want of dignity he has shown in his later 


16 


actions, totally effaced the favourable impression his 
earlier conduct produced. The attempt to permit 
constitutional principles in political matters, and at 
the same time to preserve absolute supremacy in 
ecclesiastical concerns, was next to an impossibility, 
and the result has proved the folly of the attempt. 
Pio Nono lent himself to democracy, and aban¬ 
doned the party which had hitherto been the sup¬ 
port of the Papacy; but no sooner had he dis¬ 
covered that his absolutism as supreme Pontiff stood 
on the same foundation as the right of other kings 
to the obedience of their subjects, than he began to 
intrigue against the party he had newly joined, and 
to do all in his power to impede the progress of 
those principles he had in his short-sightedness so 
loudly proclaimed. His fall may be the ground 
for intervention on the part of other powers; he 
may owe his restoration to foreign arms, or poli¬ 
ticians may think his name of service in attaching 
the fanatical party to the cause of Italian inde¬ 
pendence ; but the absolutism of the Pope is for ever 
gone, and the thunders of the Vatican are now and 
for evermore as harmless as the stage-thunder of the 
theatre. The Catholic priesthood itself has changed 
its character, and even its relation to the business of 
this world, since the accession of Pius the Ninth. It 
allows itself now to be the tool of democrats, as it 
once allowed itself to be the tool of tyrants; it is 
ready to enter into any compromise to save some 
little influence over the people; it denounces as 
loudly as ever liberal education, and lay institutions 


17 


for the promotion of learning; but in its distress 
invokes liberty to rescue it from the trammels of 
the state, in order that it may preach its theocratic 
doctrines without let or hindrance. If it is true 
that the French clergy with Lacordaire at their 
head are anxious to support and consecrate demo¬ 
cratic republicanism in France: how can the self¬ 
same party join with the legitimists in a crusade to 
restore monarchical absolutism in Italy l It would 
be equally inconsistent for those who contend for 
the “ droit d’enseignement” in France to assist the 
ecclesiastical academies of Home in maintaining 
their present monopoly of education. France 
under all her great rulers, under Richelieu, Louis 
XIV., Napoleon, and Louis Philippe, has invariably 
kept her clergy in subjection, and circumscribed 
their ecclesiastical liberties, but had she not done 
so, her university would have been overthrown, 
and her civil institutions for education supplanted 
by seminaries under Papal dominion. To protect 
the University or to preserve its national character 
she excluded the authority of the Popes and con¬ 
trolled the clergy of France, creating in the hands of 
the French government the same monopoly of 
education which the Papacy demanded should be 
placed in the hands of the ecclesiastical body. 
The French government claimed the exclusive right 
to teach in France, the Papal Church claimed the 
exclusive right to teach throughout Catholic 
Christendom. Neither raised the cry of liberty of 
education ; that cry, however, is now adopted alike 


B 


18 


by the clergy in France, and the philosophical 
liberals in Italy, the former with the view of re¬ 
leasing themselves from the control of the state, 
the latter for the purpose of relieving themselves 
from the authority of the church. Whatever ex¬ 
cuse may be found in the political changes of this 
year for the strange conduct of the clergy, they 
cannot with decency retrace their steps or even 
refuse to aid those who would carry out their new 
principle to its legitimate conclusion. That con¬ 
clusion w T ould be the abolition of all connection 
whatever between church and state, the total inde¬ 
pendence of the laity, as well as the total inde¬ 
pendence of the clergy: in other words, the volun¬ 
tary principle without the advice or assistance of 
the civil power. Nothing like this has as yet been 
established in Southern Italy; toleration is still 
a crime at Rome, and intolerance is actually a 
leading feature in the draft of the Neapolitan 
constitution ; but the time is approaching when 
even these strongholds of the olden faith must 
surrender to the new principles, and the re¬ 
clamations of the French and German clergy have 
already gone far to undermine their strength. 
Church and state once divorced throughout conti¬ 
nental Europe, what will become of Papal Rome \ 
The bishop of the bishops may reside in the 
Vatican, and religion may spread its influence, but 
absolutism in church as in state-government will 
then be a thing of the past. The struggle is sure 
to be severe, and the reverses likely to be great, 
but however varied the course of its history may 


19 


be, the contest must end in the triumph of consti¬ 
tutional and liberal principles. Long and terrible 
was the conflict in England, nor were those ex¬ 
cesses in respect of wild theories wanting, which 
have since attended the progress of revolution in 
other countries, but from the turmoil of violent and 
opposing factions the fabric of our liberties gradu¬ 
ally emerged, and we can see no reason to abandon 
the hope that the same may be the result in conti¬ 
nental Europe. 

One thing however is certain, the Papal States 
cannot remain as they are or return to what they 
were. Bologna will no longer condescend to be 
the grange of the convent, nor the nobles of Ra¬ 
venna lay-brothers in the Pope’s monastery. The 
temporal power of the Pope is incompatible with 
the progress of liberal opinions, or the develop¬ 
ment of constitutional institutions. The liberty of 
the press cannot exist without matters of faith and 
discipline being freely discussed; and how can 
dissenting opinions on the dogmas of religion be 
publicly expressed in the popular or diurnal litera¬ 
ture of the country where the Sovereign claims 
infallibility, and anathematizes all those who differ 
from him. Toleration of all creeds and public 
worship are the rights of man and essential to 
liberty, but could the Sovereign Pontiff allow 
what he considers more hazardous than infidelity, 
namely heresy, to be preached in the very heart of 
his capital ? He may anticipate little danger from 
a Jews’ synagogue or a Moslem’s mosque, but 


20 


would the case be so if an Italian Ponge opened 
a chapel, or a Lamennais poured forth from the 
pulpit his words of a believer ? The Hebrew and 
the Turk may worship the one God without under¬ 
mining the Papal creed, but the dissenting Chris¬ 
tian may raise doubts and promote inquiry where 
implicit faith and blind obedience are now de¬ 
manded. The Papacy—the Catholic religion itself 
depends upon the prostration of the intellect before 
the word of the priest and the decree of the 
church. To admit the one to be contradicted, or 
the other to be questioned, would endanger their 
authority; to silence all opposition to the former, 
and to enforce compliance with the latter, requires 
not only absolute power, but the fearless employ¬ 
ment of it. Such has been the policy of Pome, 
and to such she has owed the preservation of her 
dominion. Heresy has been immediately suppressed, 
toleration refused, scepticism visited with temporal 
punishment, and the unfortunate prelate who did 
not possess the full quota of faith ruthlessly ba¬ 
nished or imprisoned. Gregory XVI. was every 
inch a pope; Pius IX. has been in a false position 
from the moment he ascended the chair of St. Peter. 
A liberal Pope is a solecism in sense. Had he 
severed church and state, he might have preserved 
the former in all its purity, and allowed the latter 
to have taken its chance with the other revolution¬ 
ized governments of Italy; but by keeping the 
two united, every inroad made on his temporal 
power was an invasion of his spiritual absolutism. 


21 


There was something melancholy as well as lu¬ 
dicrous in the Pope putting himself at the head of 
revolution and democracy. Clubs meeting, mobs 
parading, and Jesuits expelled, all to the tune of 
Pio Nono, composes a farce too grotesque, and a 
satire too bitter, not to bring ridicule on the chief 
actor. With the kindest heart and the most sincere 
piety, the unhappy pontiff committed error on 
error. He proclaimed himself Italian, yet played 
the game of Austria, and even carried his incon¬ 
sistency so far as to bless the standards of the 
Crociati, while he declared their invasion of Lom¬ 
bardy an act of brigandage and not war. He 
formed an alliance with Charles Albert, and at the 
same time bound himself over to the Emperor to 
keep the peace. His people were placed, by his 
inconsistencies, in the most lamentable dilemma, 
leaving them no other choice but to risk being 
treated as assassins by Padetsky, or to play their 
Italian allies in Tuscany and Piedmont false. The 
ground of the tripartite alliance was the emancipa¬ 
tion of Italy; the war in Lombardy was the effect 
of their mutual engagements; Pius neither acted 
up to the spirit of the understanding nor withdrew 
from the alliance. Ignorant of the world and 
inexperienced in public life, he first relied on his 
popularity to guide the reforming spirit of the age, 
and afterwards on his spiritual authority to check 
the revolutionary movement. Disappointed in the 
one and failing in the other, he seems to have lost 
all sense of the dignity of his position or even the 


22 


responsibilities of his station. Louis Philippe 
abdicated before flying, the Emperor of Austria 
withdrew from his capital, the King of Prussia 
stood the brunt of a fearful crisis, and even the 
little Princes of Parma and Modena were expelled 
with some show of dignity; but the Sovereign of 
the Poman States, the Supreme Pontiff, the infal¬ 
lible head of the Catholic Church, ran away from 
the Quirinal and Pome on the coachbox of a foreign 
minister’s carriage and in the unbecoming disguise 
of a Bavarian footman. Kings may be deposed, 
princes eat the bitter bread of banishment, sove¬ 
reigns be imprisoned in their own palaces, without 
lowering the dignity of the station they have 
filled or destroying the prestige which surrounded 
it; but the flight of the good Pio Nono mixes 
so much comedy with tragedy, that it is a question 
whether, even in the Catholic world, more will not 
laugh than weep over it. The personal qualities 
of the man, the very errors he has committed, 
even the ludicrous plight to which he was reduced, 

•i 

and the subsequent uncertainty in which he seemed 
to labour, disarm all malice, and perhaps there is 
no creature on earth who in his private capacity 
has fewer enemies than the Pope. His person was 
never in danger in Pome, he was to the last loved, 
albeit not much respected, and however much the 
friends of civil and religious liberty may rejoice at the 
downfal of an intolerant theocracy, the adventures of 
poor PioNono will even with them excite asentiment 
of pity rather than of triumph. With a Gregory the 


23 


struggle had been one of mutual hatred, nor 
was it probable that the late Pontiff would 
have left the sanctuary of Pome unless it had 
been to open the gate to an avenging army, but 
the present good-natured successor of St. Peter 
first assisted to pull down the fabric and then 
ran away from the ruins. 

The present state of Italy, however, is not the 
result of a momentary impulse, but the inevitable 
consequence of a long continued series of events. 
We must look beyond the accession of Pope Pius 
the Ninth for the origin of the revolution which 
has shaken if not overthrown the Papal throne, 
and it is with the permanent institutions of the 
religious system rather than the political move¬ 
ments of the factions of the day that we must deal, 
in tracing the growth of democratic principles in 
Pome. Semper eadem was the motto of the tem¬ 
poral as well as the spiritual government of the 
church, and any change proposed by a lay power 
was a virtual denial of her infallibility. To reform 
the institutions was as sacrilegious an attempt as 
to destroy them; and, perhaps, of the two words, 
revolution and reformation, the former had the least 
offensive sound at the court of the Vatican. The 
government of Gregory XVI. was a strict adher¬ 
ence to the principles of the Church (blind obe¬ 
dience and irresponsible power) : his foreign allies 
recommended a partial violation of the exclusively 
ecclesiastical character of his administration, but 
he acted conscientiously and rejected their advice; 


24 


he could not take laymen into his councils, or 
submit his measures to their revision, without in¬ 
fringing the principles of the Papacy, and bringing 
the authority of the Church into question. His 
conduct might be foolish in the eyes of the world, 
but at any rate it was consistent with his position— 
the holy office, the privilege of the clergy, the cen¬ 
sorship of the press, the index expurgatorius , un¬ 
flinching intolerance towards all heretical sects, 
and the strict exclusion of laymen from power, 
were the staple and necessary portions of the system. 
To weaken their efficiency was to weaken the 
Church, to suppress them and set up their opposites 
was to make open war on the sacred establishment. 
Instead of the holy office the right to dissent—in¬ 
stead of the privilege of clergy, equality of classes— 
instead of the censorship of the press, the free circu¬ 
lation of controversial and sceptical writings—in¬ 
stead of the index expur gatorius, booksellers' shops 
teeming with the translations of Gibbon, Panke, 
Michelet, and Macaulay—instead of unflinching in¬ 
tolerance, Churches opened for the disciples of 
Luther, Calvin, Itonge, and Lamennais—instead of 
the priesthood ruling the laity the laity governing 
the priesthood, comprises a revolution from which 
Gregory recoiled, and by which Pius lost his 
throne. The system is either good or bad; if good 
it should be maintained in its integrity and full 
force; if bad rooted up and cast away altogether. 
Gregory thought it good, and maintained it un¬ 
touched. Pius thought it good too, but allowed it 


25 


to be tampered with. The result was, the former 
was hated, the latter pitied and despised. The 
powers who recommended reforms in 1832 were 
either ignorant of the nature or indifferent to the 
interests of the Papacy; they advised the priest¬ 
hood to share their power with laymen, the Church 
to reverse its principles and take counsel from 
instead of giving orders to the laity. The admis¬ 
sion of laymen to the administration destroys its 
ecclesiastical character, and by secularizing the 
Papal Government you deprive it of its most 
cherished attribute. What Gregory declined to do 
Pius consented to. The effect of his concession 
was unavoidable. Admitted to places in the ad¬ 
ministration, and called on to give advice in the 
Privy Council, laymen exercised their own judg¬ 
ment and acted on their own responsibility. They 
no longer re-echoed the sentiments of the clergy, 
nor submitted to be mechanical supports of the 
spiritual power. Pome was from that moment , 
split into two parties, the division was unavoidable, 
the laity had invaded the exclusive privileges of 
the clergy, and were admitted to meddle with 
affairs which, in the doctrines of Rome, were hitherto 
considered the proper province of the priesthood. 
The contest began ; to stand still was impossible ; 
progress versus re-action, the laity versus the clergy, 
responsible government versus infallibility, pli¬ 
ability and development, the attributes of consti¬ 
tutional institutions versus the “ semper eadem ,” the 
still proud boast of the Catholic Church. 


26 


# 


Whether conducted violently or moderately, the 
contest was the same. The ministry of Kossi was 
as great an innovation as that of Sterbini, the con¬ 
stitutional views of Mamiani, as the republican 
fanaticism of Mazzini. All were sacrilegious in¬ 
vasions of the authority of the Church within the 
states of the Church, and all destroyed alike the 
homogeneous character of the Papal government. 
We must not, however, lay the blame or award 
the praise of this revolution to the weakness 
or generosity of Pius. The conduct of Gregory, 
although perfectly consistent, created stumbling 
blocks in the way of his successor. During Gregory’s 
reign, and for years previous, it had been the habit 
to confine education to religious seminaries, and to 
exclude all books which might excite the mind to 
inquiry on religious and political subjects. The 
effect of this system was to render the youth edu¬ 
cated in colleges obedient, credulous, dependent on 
others, and diffident of themselves; without am¬ 
bition, and behind the rest of the world in spirit 
and knowledge, they did not understand indepen¬ 
dence, but expected always to be led by others. 
Those who revolted against the system, or claimed 
the right to judge for themselves, were banished the 
State, and the number so exiled became at last an 
important fraction of the whole population. Exiles 
in other countries, they studied the political and 
religious institutions of England, France, and 
Prussia, imbibed liberal ideas, and became accus¬ 
tomed to see subjects treated as men, and not as 


27 


children. They and their children were superior 
in education, knowledge of the world, and habits 
of business, to their fellow countrymen left under 
the tuition of the priests. Pius recalled these men 
from banishment, and imagined that they would 
again submit to the parental authority which the 
successor of St. Peter has long exercised in the 
most minute domestic affairs of his children, as he 
calls them. Their presence in Pome gave a new 
tone to society; the knowledge they had acquired 
in foreign countries spread, and subjects new to 
Romans formed topics of conversation in private 
circles. The priests were no longer the sole oracles 
in all families ; they could no longer lay down the 
law, and expect implicit faith in their judgment. 
There were for the first time men in Rome who 
dared to think for themselves on religious and 
secular subjects—men who did not ask the advice 
of the priest as to the management of their families 
—men who thought that, as they had a stake in the 
country, they ought to have a voice in its govern¬ 
ment. Prohibited books were introduced, and a 
new page of constitutional history opened to those 
who had hitherto only read through the spectacles 
of their spiritual advisers. The consequence was 
inevitable; Romans suddenly awoke to the know¬ 
ledge that they were the most despised, ill-governed, 
and insignificant people in Europe. The social 
position of the Pope’s subjects was totally different 
from that in which the people of the other Italian 
kingdoms found themselves. The latter had the 


♦ 


28 


# 


ordinary grievances which absolute governments, 
whether mildly or harshly administered, inflict on 
a civilised population. They had no voice in the 
State; the practice of self-government was denied 
them; if they enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, 
it was by toleration, and not by right; they were 
treated as children—sometimes indulged, but never 
allowed to exercise their judgment; like children 
too, everything was done for them, and they were 
supposed to be incapable of doing anything for 
themselves. Such was the condition of the Tuscans 
under the mild but absolute rule of the Grand 
Duke. There was nothing to impede the greatest 
physical prosperity; wealth might be accumulated 
and enjoyed; agriculture was encouraged, crime 
repressed, and property respected; but man was 
humiliated—he was allowed to indulge at pleasure 
in the pursuits of private life, but a public career 
was completely debarred him. What the Tuscans 
wanted was a share in the administration of affairs. 
They had no harshness to complain of—no cruelties 
to revenge. They wished to hold by right and at 
their own hands those means of happiness which 
they then held by permission and at the hands of 
others. A change in the system of government 
without a change in the frame of society was the 
object sought and obtained by the Tuscans. Iif 
this there was no violation of an established prin¬ 
ciple—no change which was incompatible with the 
continuation of a reigning family—nothing sub¬ 
versive of the Ducal throne—nothing which a 



29 


monarch could not accept. But in the Papal States 
another and a very different revolution was neces¬ 
sary before the people could enjoy not only con¬ 
stitutional privileges but even that personal position 
in society which, under all secular governments, 
even the most absolute, they are allowed to hold. 
The policy of Pome did not content itself with 
depriving the subject of all political power, but 
carried its authority into his domestic arrangements, 
and kept strict watch by the side of his hearth. 
The Roman was not only considered a child with 
regard to public affairs, but treated as a ward in 
respect to his family concerns. The priest was 
everything and everywhere. He was the law¬ 
maker and the law-interpreter; he was judge 
and prosecutor ; he exercised the authority of 
a magistrate in the public places, and claimed 
the authority of a father in the family. The 
Church was the sole profession in the State, the 
only body who were considered the dispensers of 
benefits, the treasurers of the revenue, and the 
chief proprietors of . the soil. The principle of the 
Roman government was different from that of any 
other, whether absolute or constitutional. The 
Sovereign had nothing in common with other 
Sovereigns; his immediate councillors were in¬ 
fluenced by motives distinct from those which sway 
with the Ministers of other Princes. The univer¬ 
sality of the Catholic religion was the principle, 
the maintenance of ecclesiastical power the business 
of the Roman government. The temporal welfare 


30 


of the territorial subjects of the See was as a drop 
in the ocean if compared with the eternal interests 
of the multitudes who compose the spiritual 
kingdom of St. Peter’s. The trade, commerce, 
manufactures, and agriculture of a strip of land in 
Italy were matters of secondary consideration in 
the minds of those who contemplated control oyer 
the faith of all the nations of the world. This 
system could not last amidst the blaze of liberal 
principles in the rest of Europe; and there were 
now for the first time in Rome men who would 
submit no longer to such humiliation. The 
miserable nobles, who had never travelled beyond 
the Ponte Molle and still clung to the old doctrines 
of passive obedience, could not contend with the 
enlightened exiles who had come from Paris and 
London. The Pope gave way as far as he 
dared and much further than he liked, but so 
useless were his priest-ridden nobles that he was 
obliged to rely entirely on the most moderate of the 
exiles. These served him as long as he did not 
oppose the progress he himself had, however un¬ 
willingly, sanctioned; but no sooner had the 
natural result of his policy shown itself in greater 
freedom of thought on religious topics than he 
began to bewail aloud the inevitable effects of his 
previous measures. Then was displayed in its full 
force the superiority of foreign over native education. 
The returned exiles became everything, the eleves 
of the priests nothing. The Index Expurgatorius 
precluded the Romans from acquiring any real 


31 


knowledge of history. Nearly every historian of 
note and most books of travels are to be found in 
the forbidden list. Gibbon and Hume, Robertson 
and Milton, are amongst the many English writers 
whose pages are closed to the Roman reader; he 
risked his liberty if he opened Burnet’s History of 
the Reformation, and his house might have been 
searched for a copy of Lady Morgan’s work on 
Italy. Foreign newspapers addressed to foreigners 
were frequently, in Gregory’s time, seized at the 
post office, and Rome was thus supposed to be kept 
in ignorance of Ronge’s movements, and Switzer¬ 
land’s protest against Jesuitism. The stupidity of 
such a system is equal to its cruelty; it only rendered 
the sincere friends of the Papacy incapable and 
indolent, while it irritated active minds, and made 
them seek the more earnestly their emancipation. 
The Roman government dictated devotional ex¬ 
ercises to its adult subjects, and enforced the 
performance of them by severe penalties. A Roman 
was exposed to be imprisoned if he neglected to go 
to confession at Easter: he might be called before 
the Inquisition for expressing any doubts as to the 
truth of some absurd miracle. If a priest ventured 
to utter aloud his conscientious misgivings as to an 
article of the Catholic faith, his only chance of ever 
again seeing the light of heaven was through the 
bars of his prison window. The laws, and the 
administration of them, had the maintenance of 
the Papal religion more in view than the prevention 
of offences against the person and against property. 




32 


The criminal law, as administered in the time of 
Gregory, was alone sufficient to make any people of 
spirit rise in revolt. The prisoner was seldom con¬ 
fronted with his prosecutor, written depositions 
being used instead of oral testimony, and the names 
of the witnesses often suppressed; the prisoner had 
no opportunity of communicating with his friends, 
or employing counsel for his defence; there was 
no limit to imprisonment before trial; no bail—no 
jury—no certainty of being brought to trial at all. 
Things went a little better, but only a little, in the 
civil courts than they did in the criminal; the 
members of the learned profession who were not 
ecclesiastics were held cheap in the eyes of the 
Papal government; the mortifications they were 
subject to rankled in their breasts, and made them 
look forward with impatience to the day when the 
powers of the privileged class should pass away. 
With such opponents in the very heart of Pome, 
and with no other supporters than half a dozen 
timid nobles, what could the Pope do to oppose 
the progress of revolution, or what can he now do 
to recover the lost ground % Foreign arms can 
alone restore, foreign occupation alone maintain 
the Pope’s power. He must choose between the 
loss of his temporal crown and the subjugation of 
Pome by foreign bayonets. His election is already 
made. From the walls of Gaeta he has sent forth 
to every Catholic power in Europe plaintive sup¬ 
plications, denouncing his own subjects, and ap¬ 
pealing to the pious subjects of other Sovereigns 


33 


for pity and support. Of the former he has 
obtained enough to satisfy the most distressed 
heart; all Europe have condoled with the exile, but 
instead of opening the road back to the Vatican, 
England, Prussia, and Portugal have as yet at least 
only invited him to spend the days of his exile 
within their respective dominions. Austria is 
willing but not ready to interfere; Spain makes an 
empty offer; Naples, or rather her King, would 
consider Heaven gained if the excommunicated 
insurgents were swept from the streets of Pome by 
his artillery; Portugal would applaud the deed; but 
it is not Naples, Spain, or Portugal who can effect 
the object if France says nay. On Paris and on 
her caprice depends for the moment the fate of 
Italy. 

The con duct of the French government on the occa¬ 
sion of the Pope’s flight was not less inconsistent and 
ludicrous than the unfortunate step taken by the ob¬ 
ject of their sympathy. To have offered an asylum to 
the fugitive, and to have treated him with all the 
respect which belongs to his station was the duty 
of every nation; to have covered his retreat, and 
prevented any attempt on his life, was not only a 
duty but even an act of policy, as far as the cause 
of Italian liberties is concerned; but the manner 
and parade with which these duties were performed, 
were not only absurd but calculated to defeat their 
object. On the eve of an election for the presi¬ 
dentship, when the population of the distant, less 
enlightened, but most religious provinces seemed 

c 




34 


undecided in their choice, one of the candidates, 
who at the same time is a staunch republican, is 
shocked at the attempt to weaken the absolutism of 
temporal power in Rome, and makes greater 
efforts to entice to the shores of France the steps of 
the falling monarch than he did to rescue Messina 
from destruction. Democratic France was to send 
her republican forces to put down liberty in Rome, 
for though the instructions to the envoy were 
cautiously worded, the moral effect of the expedi¬ 
tion would have been to strengthen royalty and 
absolutism in Europe. Russia, and not France, 
was the natural champion of the fallen monarch, 
and it is difficult to imagine how this preference for 
the cause of kings over the liberties of the subjects 
could be explained to a democratic assembly. The 
Pope, however, either saw the real motive of this 
excess of zeal in his favour or distrusted the fickle 
love of a sceptical people. He paused at any rate 
before he accepted their proposed hospitality, and 
threw himself into the arms of the most thorough- 
pacing tyrant, and bigoted Catholic, who still re¬ 
mains on a throne. His cause is now outwardly as 
well as inwardly identified with absolutism and in¬ 
tolerance. Those persons have no longer an excuse 
for their slanders who accuse Pope Pius of having 
liberal opinions. He who denounced all education 
in Ireland, except the wretched modicum doled out 
to the laity by the priesthood, he who wept over 
the expulsion of the Jesuits, he who relied on the 
religious fanaticism, of the Transteverini to restore 


his temporal absolutism, has at length thrown off 
the mask and openly joined the party to which he 
legitimately belongs. Henceforth he appears in 
the ranks of the enemies of constitutional go¬ 
vernment, religious toleration, and Italian inde¬ 
pendence. 

As long as the Pope is temporal sovereign of 
Pome, Catholic Powers will have an excuse to 
interfere in the internal affairs of Italy. They say 
that it is to their interest that the spiritual head of 
the Catholic Church should be an absolute monarch, 
and that any neglect on their part to maintain his 
complete freedom of action might involve them in 
difficulties with their own Catholic clergy. Where 
the clergy retain an influence over the laity the 
question becomes one of moment, and it has hap¬ 
pened that a government, liberal at home, has not 
hesitated for a temporary object to assist the 
severest form of tyranny abroad. It is true that 
the Catholic powers have circumscribed the Pope’s 
authority in their own dominions, set his edicts at 
nought, and in their code of laws, adopted principles 
directly opposed to his doctrines, but when political 
interests are at stake, they avail themselves of 
a pretended respect to his spiritual indepen¬ 
dence to uphold his temporal absolutism, and 
adopt a line of conduct towards his subjects 
which would not be borne for an hour if pursued 
towards their own. Degraded by the form of 
government which the Catholic powers wish to 
perpetuate, and despised by these very Catholic 


36 


powers on account of that degradation, the Roman 
states have hitherto been denied the common 
right, enjoyed by other people, of modifying 
as well as selecting their own form of govern¬ 
ment. Direct interference is advocated by the 
very parties who most loudly protest against the 
principle when adopted towards themselves. Naples 
has protested against any interference between a 
sovereign and his people. Austria has a quarrel 
with her Lombard subjects, and all she asks is that 
other powers will leave her and her people alone. 
She denied the authority of Germany to meddle in 
her struggle with her own Viennese, and even 
hanged a member of the Diet of Frankfort for 
attempting to do so. The unprincipled govern¬ 
ment of Spain was so jealous of interference in her 
internal affairs that she sent away a foreign minister 
because he was supposed to favour one political 
party in the State. Yet Naples and Austria, Spain 
and Portugal acknowledge the right to interfere in 
the contest now carrying on between Papal Abso¬ 
lutism and liberal institutions in Rome. Thus the 
very grounds on which the Catholic powers justify 
an interference in the affairs of Rome is the strongest 
argument with the Romans for getting rid alto¬ 
gether of the Papal power. Its presence on the 
temporal throne entails on the people constant 
interference in their internal affairs, while it de¬ 
prives them of the common independence of action 
claimed by every other country in the world. Left 
to themselves the Roman people would now, and 


37 


for ever, shake off the galling yoke of an ecclesias¬ 
tical government; against the all but unanimous 
wish of the educated classes, the cardinals and 
priesthood could effect little, nor are there amongst 
the nobility attached to the Pope a single man of 
ordinary ability or experience. 

The Romans, as well as the citizens of other 
towns in Italy, are struggling for liberty and a new 
form of government, against a most offensive 
tyranny and a long established despotism. In the 
course of the struggle the monarch refuses to 
comply with the wishes of his people and the 
opinion of his parliament. He intrigues with 
foreign states for foreign aid, signs documents, 
appoints ministers, and then declares his own signa¬ 
ture and his own appointments, endorsed as they 
had been by the minister, to be null and void. He 
refuses to hear his own people, puts himself under 
the sole guidance of foreign advisers; and though he 
had consented to a constitutional form of govern¬ 
ment, he issued decrees and addresses in all the 
childish language of the old paternal absolutisms. 
After various acts of inconsistency he runs away 
from his own dominions, and, under the protection 
of foreigners, pretends to dictate to the people he 
has forsaken. His quarrel is a quarrel similar to 
that of the Dukes of Parma and Modena with their 
people, or Louis Philippe and Charles X. with 
theirs. France, however, immediately offers, and 
eventually sends assistance to this sovereign, and 
no notice is taken of the merits of the case between 


38 


the runaway sovereign and his people. In fact, 
France has treated the Romans as though they 
possessed neither the right or ability of exercising 
either judgment, will, or understanding. It is 
evident too, from the letter and speech of Cavaignac, 
that the Pope had long been intriguing with France 
against his own people, that his apparent consent 
to the liberal measures asked by his people was 
given with a mental reservation, and that he was 
determined to sacrifice every thing dearest to the 
people for the sake of maintaining his absolutism. 
From a distant period it appears that he had relied 
on foreign aid to recover the privileges wrung from 
him by his subjects, and that the late King of the 
French had undertaken to afford him that assist¬ 
ance. It further appears from Cavaignac’s letters 
of the 3rd of December, that the hospitality of France 
was asked by the Pope, before it was proffered by 
the Government, although the reply from Gaeta 
dated the 10th, would fain leave the impression 
that the offer of protection to the person of the 
Pontiff was a spontaneous burst of religious zeal, 
and not the mere consent to a previous proposal. 

- This revelation diminishes, in some degree, the 
apparent extravagance of Cavaignac’s anxiety to 
convey the person of the Pope to the shores of 
France, but places the ill-starred Pontiff himself in 
a still more unfortunate position towards his people. 
For a long time previous to his flight he seems to 
have been playing a false part; and, while yielding 
in Pome to the voice of the nation, was preparing 


39 


abroad for a counter-revolution. Rossi seems to 
have enjoyed no more of the confidence of the 
Papal Court than Mamiani, and had the former not 
fallen, it is probable that he would have been as 
objectionable to the theocracy of the Quirinal as 
Sterbini himself has become. The question has 
ever been, and still is, absolutism against all other 
forms of Government. No mean course can be 
adopted without an infringement of the Papal 
supremacy. A complete counter-revolution and 
restoration of the ancient regime can alone satisfy 
the Pope’s party; the struggle is one of life or 
death to either side. The Pope must be lord and 
master, supreme and infallible,—one and undivided 
in power and sovereignty, or the Papacy falls. If 
he accepts the control of a lay body, or admits 
the necessity of his decrees being signed by a lay 
minister, he consents to the separation of his 
temporal and spiritual power, and is no longer the 
Sovereign Pontiff in the sense in which his pre¬ 
decessors interpreted the word. Once separated, 
the temporal government may object to its head 
being elected by the spiritual body, and find that 
the individual best suited to the one station is the 
most unlikely to fulfil the duties of the other. The 
steps taken, and taken with the outward consent of 
the Pope, must be retraced or they will inevitably 
lead to that conclusion. The separation of the 
spiritual and temporal power is essential, if the 
Romans would maintain the few liberties they 
have conquered. The conduct of Catholic Europe 


t 


40 


since the Pope’s flight has made this evident. The 
revolutions of other nations have been respected,— 
Diets and Parliaments are left to conquer if they 
can, — Germany remodels her whole polity, — 
Austria reconstructs an Empire, and in Paris the 
battle is fairly fought out between the Red and the 
Moderate Republicans,—but Pome and Romans 
are despised; every one claims a right to trample 
on them, because their government is a Theocracy, 
and under a Theocracy the laity are considered 
as unfit to rule. This feeling has long rankled in 
the breasts of the most enlightened and ambitious 
of the Roman people, and tended to weaken their 
religious convictions respecting the Papacy. They, 
who would have shown the greatest reverence for 
the Pope as the head of their religion, were 
estranged from him by the sense of degradation to 
which his temporal power reduced them. The 
consequences of the temporal power destroyed the 
influence of his spiritual jurisdiction, and the Pope 
was despised or hated as his people were oppressed 
by interior mal-administration, or trampled on by 
foreign allies. Rome is thus reduced to the unfor¬ 
tunate dilemma of either abandoning all attempts 
at establishing a constitutional form of government 
or getting rid altogether of the sovereignty of the 
Pope. 

Having arrived at the conclusion that con¬ 
stitutional liberty, and the temporal power of the 
Pope are incompatible, we proceed to consider by 
what means Central Italy can be restored to order 


41 


without deranging the balance of power in the 
Peninsula. Tuscany and the Papal States long to 
be united; at least their present organs of public 
opinion profess such a wish, nor is there anything 
in their geographical position to prevent the accom¬ 
plishment of their desire. If united, what city is 
to be the capital. Pome has the first claim, but 
the complete removal of the Government of 
Tuscany to Pome would ruin Florence. Pisa and 
Sienna, Bologna and Ferrara, are living proofs of 
the evils of centralisation. Monarchy or Republic, 
the seat of Government is fed at the expense of 
the provincial towns. Italy, with its many splendid 
cities, is the least adapted of any country I know 
to a strict system of centralisation. 

The people say they have a right to have a voice 
in the choice of a form of Government; both in 
Pome and Florence they have, through their 
representatives, pronounced for a Republic. A 
Republic is dangerous to the internal peace of the 
country, as well as to the neighbouring Monarchies, 
if the senate is merely the centralized expression 
of popular passions, and the government only an 
instrument in the hands of a metropolitan mob. 
How then to unite Pome and Tuscany, and yet 
prevent the evils of centralisation,—to gratify the 
wishes of the people, and yet avoid the dangers of 
a Republic % Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Sienna, 
Bologna, Perugia, Ravenna, Faenza, Ferrara, Rome, 
have all been capitals, and still possess the remi¬ 
niscences of self-government. Restore or create in 


42 


each of them Republican institutions which would 
resemble, or rather be well-developed municipal 
governments. 

Let them have their Chambers and their 
Executive Committees, their Presidents and their 
Ministers. Leave to them the management of 
their own affairs in all that does not directly affect 
the whole of Central Italy. By thus dispersing the 
Republicans, and giving their energies a fair field 
in their separate municipalities, all danger of a 
turbulent minority gaining the upper hand would 
disappear. Men of property would be brought 
forward in the municipal governments by their 
local influence, who would never think of taking 
part in a centralized government; while dema¬ 
gogues, who thirst merely for popular notoriety, 
would be tamed by the smallness of the stage on 
which their ranting was exhibited. The great 
questions, however,—peace and war, defence of the 
country, and relations with foreign powers,—render 
a central government necessary; with a central 
executive, a central legislative body must exist. 
The former would be responsible to the latter, and 
the latter would represent the separate municipali¬ 
ties. Either elected by the voters in each muni¬ 
cipal state, or deputed by the legislatures of the 
States, this central chamber would take cognizance 
of no questions but those of general interest, and 
in no way interfere in the local governments of 
the States, a vorort or diet of the States, which 
might sit in rotation in Bologna, Florence, and 


43 


Rome. The Central Government, if composed of 
an hereditary Stadtholder and responsible ministers, 
would be a safeguard against ultra-democracy, and 
a security against any return to absolutism. Public 
opinion would have ample control over the 
Government, while the action of that Government 
would obtain consistency from its appointment by 
an hereditary chief. The course of its policy would 
depend upon the feeling of the country, but would 
not be exposed to interruption at the close of every 
four years by a change in the person of the 
President. The principles of self-government 
would be thus carried out to their greatest extent, 
while the advantages of centralisation would be 
obtained, without its dangers, by the modified 
principle developed in a central government. Jus¬ 
tice, as well as interest, point to the Duke of 
Tuscany as the most suitable person for the 
Stadtholder. 

But the Pope—what is to be done with the 
Pope? Secure him a certain and handsome income. 
Replace him in all the pomp of his spiritual sove¬ 
reignty on the chair of St. Peter—let him reside in 
his sumptuous palace of the Vatican, relieved from 
all worldly cares ; there he may hold his consistories, 
there proclaim his edicts, and thence fulminate his 
excommunications. You can do this for him, but 
you can do no more without prolonging the most 
cruel warfare ever began upon earth—the war of 
intolerance. It is nonsense to talk of taking away 
or restoring his spiritual power; if such language 



44 


ever had a meaning, that meaning was, that a 
power existed of extending or diminishing his legal 
jurisdiction beyond the limits of his temporal 
sovereignty. In that meaning of the word he has 
had very little spiritual power for the last half 
century. There is no tribunal in England to carry 
out his edicts—none in Russia—none in America. 
In France, in Austria, and in Tuscany, there have 
been actually laws and institutions to limit and 
eventually exclude the exercise of his power. He 
may preserve some rights by law in Naples, and I 
believe he has by treaty some power secured to 
him in Turkey over the Roman priesthood. In 
Rome, and in Rome alone, he is, or rather was 
almighty, at least de jure if not de facto . His 
spiritual power is now no more than the voluntary 
obedience any person may choose to pay to his 
edicts; it is a personal not a national question. 
All you can do is to restore him to the chair of 
St. Peter—that is, to his Bishoprick of Rome. 
Do that, but do not replace in his hand the sceptre 
of Central Italy. 

Difficulty, however, succeeds difficulty in dealing 
with a power so peculiar in its characteristics as 
the Papacy. To restore Pius to his throne in all 
the completeness of absolute monarchy would be 
a glaring injustice to the Italian people—to place 
him at the head of a constitutional government 
would be an absurdity, and endanger the indepen¬ 
dence of his spiritual power—to leave him in the 
hands of any European state would be injurious to 



45 


all other Catholic countries. Though weak in 
himself, he is a dangerous weapon in the hands of 
others, and his spiritual influence would run the 
risk of being abused for political purposes, if he 
himself was the protected pensioner of any one 
Catholic country. To give an independent action 
to the spiritual power, seems to be the desire of 
Catholic Europe, but that independant action can 
never be secured as long as the Pope combines in 
his own person the temporal sovereign of a consti¬ 
tutional state, and the supreme head of all Catholic 
Christendom. The interests of his own people and 
those of the whole Catholic church may be opposed 
to each other, and the sovereign prelate is then 
placed in the painful dilemma of choosing between 
opposition to the welfare of his own temporal 
subjects and injury to the whole Catholic Church: 
Pope and Parliament are incompatible. Let a member 
propose religious toleration—the free circulation of 
the Bible—lay colleges—a law of mortmain—limi¬ 
tation of monastic vows—alteration in the law of mar¬ 
riage—a law of divorce—a law with regard to public 
processions, or a hundred other such like questions ; 
and the Pope’s spiritual power must be brought 
into controversy, and its pretensions exposed to be 
caviled at. The spiritual arms have lately been 
used to support the temporal interests of the Pope, 
and the consequence has been that these once for¬ 
midable weapons have been met with ridicule and 
contempt. Clothed in all the fiery language of the 
Vatican, a terrible curse and excommunication were 



46 


hurled against those who should take part in the 
then coming election. This remarkable edict was 
published on the 1st of January, 1849; no pains 
were omitted to make it known; there was no 
mistaking its meaning; it did not palter in a 
double sense, but distinctly doomed to the greatest 
penalties and heaviest curses of the Catholic 
Church all participators in the political proceedings 
of Home. What was the effect of this the most for¬ 
midable and once irresistible arm of the Pope’s 
spiritual power ] A schoolboy’s squib could not 
be more disregarded. A larger number in pro¬ 
portion to the population took part in the election 
of the Constituent Assembly than have ever voted 
in any country. The whole country thus have 
subjected themselves to the Papal excommunica¬ 
tion, and amongst the number are to be found 
several priests and one or two bishops. What was 
the cause of this contempt! The spiritual power 
had been employed to advance a purely temporal 
object. The union of the two jurisdictions brought 
contempt on both. He was dethroned as king— 
disregarded as Pope. The latter ought to have 
been to him the more painful event. Separate the 
two powers, and the spiritual will not be so ex¬ 
posed to be misused—if not misused, it will be the 
more respected. 

Supposing the spiritual and temporal power in 
Home to be permanently separated, and the latter 
to be vested in the Grand Duke of Tuscany as 
chief of the state, no difficulty would stand in the 


47 


way of the only union Italy is at present capable 
of, namely, an offensive and defensive alliance be¬ 
tween Piedmont, Rome, and Florence. The 
Italian question, however, is not so much a terri¬ 
torial as a social one, and the states of Italy can 
only exist as independent powers, at least for some 
time to come, by the forbearance of the great 
powers. Until liberal institutions have inspired 
the mass of the population with the feelings of self- 
reliance, no uniform or general resistance can be 
offered to either an Austrian or French invasion. 
The business, therefore, of those who wish to rege¬ 
nerate Italy is to establish and maintain such an 
internal system as may eradicate that contemptible 
spirit of whining helplessness which past misgo- 
vernment has implanted in the Italian character. 

The moment is favourable. Now for the first 
time in modern history has an opportunity occurred 
of introducing even a modification in the intolerant 
spirit and illiberal character of Italian Govern¬ 
ments. Any attempt to effect any substantial re¬ 
form in the institutions of the Papal States, would 
hitherto have been met by resistance from Austria, 
notwithstanding her recommendation in 1832; but 
now as Austria herself has shaken off her absolute 
government, she cannot without gross inconsistency 
take active measures to prevent the development of 
a foreign constitutional government, and even if 
she wished to do so, a power stronger than her 
strong arm is now in existence to contend with 
her. Once put in motion the love of liberty must 


48 


roll on. The advocates of Italian unity may by their 
indiscretion bring the army of Radetsky again into 
the field ; but neither the advance of his troops nor 
the landing of a French propapal expedition 
will have more effect on the development of liberal 
principles than the tyranny of the Inquisition had 
on the Copernican system. “ Ma pure si muove ” 
may be as truly responded to the friends of the 
ancient regime as it was by Galileo to his fanatical 
gaolers. The King of Prussia is pledged—the con¬ 
stitution octroye to his subjects exceeds their ut¬ 
most expectations—the government of Austria has 
answered for the young Emperor. Neither he nor 
they can well retract the speech of Felix Schwart- 
zenburg. Victor Emanuel, like his father, Charles 
Albert, is compromised—he signed the compact 
with blood. The King of Naples has promised, 
and we believe sworn to keep his promise; but it 
would be rash to rely either on his sincerity or his 
good faith. England will be content with looking 
on—Russia alone is capable of turning the scales. 
Too long have the statesmen of the West neglected 
the only quarter from which danger to the liberties 
of Europe can proceed. Constantinople and the 
Dardanelles are still the bulwarks of European 
independence, and the gates which keep back the 
flood-tide of Scythian barbarism. The Sultan is 
now the guardian, as some of his predecessors were 
the enemies of European freedom. His vast empire 
and heterogeneous population form a neutral ground 
between the more than Asiatic absolutism of Russia 


49 


and the new-born spirit of liberty on the shores of 
the Mediterranean. In the strength of Turkey and 
her independence lies the peace as well as the 
freedom of Europe. 

In minds accustomed to contemplate the state of 
Europe, late events in the Danubian Principalities 
have created more alarm, and attracted more atten¬ 
tion than many of the much-talked of revolutions in 
other parts of the Continent. Unfortunate as those 
events have been, and constrained as has been the 
policy of the Sublime Porte in the course it was 
obliged to take with regard to them, the result has 
not been to destroy the popularity or to weaken the 
power of the Turks. Russia, on the contrary, has 
displayed her malice so openly, that it is evident to 
the world that she would neither respect treaties 
nor national rights when the struggle is between 
constitutional liberties and absolute monarchy. 
But spite of her inclinations, and notwithstanding 
her hatred of freedom, the King of Naples and his 
guest, the Pope, may cast many a northern glance 
towards the Court of St. Petersburgh before the 
fleets of Russia leave the land-locked sea of Azop 
for the broader waters of the Mediterranean. The 
result of such a step is too well known to all the 
powers of Europe. The first shot fired from a 
Russian gun would be the commencement of the 
most dire war that ever desolated Christendom. It 
would no longer be nation against nation, but 
principle against principle. Absolutism, Papacy, 
religious fanaticism, and political retrogression 

D 


50 


burning in the breasts of one party, while demo¬ 
cracy, religious freedom, and civil liberty inspired 
the actions of the other. Moderate men would be 
lost in the confusion, and their voices drowned in 
the roar of passions. England foresees this, and 
her humanity dictates that policy which shall most 
effectually restrain Russia from interference in the 
civil broils of other countries. Revolutions must 
take their course ; England knows from experience 
the length of time it requires to create constitutional 
habits, and the historian reads in English annals 
the great archetype of what is now passing in 
nearly every country of Europe. Excesses may 
stain, and have stained, the best of causes; ex¬ 
tremes are certain to be hurried into by popular 
leaders—the vessel of the state cannot lay her 
course with precision amidst the storms of passion ; 
too rapid progress leads to equally rapid revulsions, 
and it is not till the effects of all ultra opinions are 
bitterly felt that the moderate men have any attrac¬ 
tion for the public taste. Foreign interference 
would only prolong the struggle now fairly begun, 
but not as yet ended, between opposing principles. 
If suppressed for a time, the fierce passion of demo¬ 
cracy breaks out with redoubled fury ; if allowed a 
certain tether it exhausts itself in ridiculous efforts 
to rise. Democracy has a fair field in England—it 
may mount the hustings, it may obtain a voice in 
the Commons, it is not excluded from the Peers. 
If the country is aristocratic, it is aristocratic by 
choice, the people themselves respect aristocratic 


51 


institutions because they are the goals often reached 
by the persevering and successful members of their 
own body. Half the House of Lords and two- 
thirds of the Baronetage are of plebeian origin; 
there are earls and barons who are the grand¬ 
children or great grandchildren of tradesmen. The 
House of Lords is an aristocratic institution founded 
on democratic basis, and is less exclusive in its 
principle than the House of Commons. The 
House of Commons requires a landed qualification ; 
the House of Lords requires none. Where the 
press is free, the abuses of the press will in time 
correct themselves, for if a newspaper constantly 
misrepresents facts it is neither respected or read. 
People wish to know the truth, whatever they may 
think of it. Coarse personalities and revolting 
violence of language, if often repeated, lose their 
sting, and finally disgust the very parties they are 
intended to serve. The diurnal press must be re¬ 
spectable to be profitable, as the more wealthy and 
better educated portion of society compose the cus¬ 
tomers on which it permanently relies for success. 
Public discussions and popular debates habituate 
the people to hear both sides of a question, and as 
prejudice is fickle and reason constant, the latter 
will in the end triumph. An Englishman sees much 
popular excitement, hears many violent speeches, 
reads many extravagant articles, and attends many 
public meetings, without either expecting a revo¬ 
lution or fearing a breach of the peace; but a 
Frenchman sees an explosion in every bombastic 


52 


tirade, a popular movement in every newspapei 
article, and an insurrection in every noisy crowd. 
Whatever may be the alarms entertained by Russia, 
England has nothing to fear from the establishment 
of constitutional governments on the Continent. 
A few zealous spirits may carry their enthusiasm 
too far and bring ridicule on a cause which, in 
the hands of some experienced persons, would 
have ensured respect; but in England the habits 

of the educated classes enable them to distinguish 

* 

between men and measures, and do not allow the 
character of the Ministers to make them overlook 
the merits of their policy. On the Continent, 
on the contrary, parties are divided, and influ¬ 
enced by the name of their leaders, and, until 
they have had more experience of constitutional 
forms of government, will be ripe for rebellion 
whenever an unpopular name appears at the head 
of the ministry. Time, however, will teach them, 
as it has taught us, that by adhering close to con¬ 
stitutional means an object is gained much quicker 
than by intriguing or revolting against the executive 
power. Put them in the wrong, but keep your¬ 
selves in the right, ought to be the policy adopted 
by, as well as the advice given to, the people in 
their disagreements with their governments. How¬ 
ever much the English nation may condemn the 
bloody insurrections of Paris, Frankfort, and Vienna, 
in the months of June, August, and September, or 
how bitterly soever they may lament the murders 
of Counts Latour, Lamberg, and Rossi, they cannot, 


53 


without showing monstrous inconsistency, feel other 
than sympathy with the great party who have upset 
tyranny, absolutism, and irresponsibility, and are 
now endeavouring to establish liberty, toleration, 
and constitutional government on their ruins. To 
interfere between Sicily and Naples—to encourage 
either the disruption of an empire, or the consoli¬ 
dation of states—to advocate the cause of Hungary, 
or to assist in coercing the minor States of Germany 
—are questions of state policy, on which there may 
exist a difference of opinion; but to proclaim our 
wishes for the success of liberal institutions, and to 

assert as a principle the right of a people to eject a 

* 

tyrant, and even alter their forms of government, 
are not reprehensible acts, but the duties of a free 
people. England as a nation is with the liberal 
party, and there is little fear of her government 
being allowed to assist the retrograde party. 

Against Russia, therefore, as the only power 
whose interest it is to destroy constitutional govern¬ 
ments in Europe, the friends of liberty should 
combine to erect a barrier. Austria as well as 
Turkey is essential to that object, but the Cabinet 
of Vienna, unfortunately, feels more inclined to 
open the door to the Muscovite than to act as the 
sentinel of constitutional Europe. It invites the 
Cossack to ravage the cities of Germany and Italy 
instead of challenging the intruder when he 
attempts to pass the frontier. This its inclination, 
proceeding from a lingering love of absolute go¬ 
vernment, makes Austria the enemy instead of the 


54 


safeguard of revolutionized Europe, and checks 
that desire to see her strong which otherwise 
would be the natural feeling of all constitutional 
States. It is, however, essential to the balance of 
power that some strong power should exist to the 
south-east of Germany, and many men would prefer 
to see a Magyar-Polish kingdom rise up to oppose 
the westward march of Russia than trust to Austria 
with her unfortunate predilection for the Czar. 
She cannot be the friend of Russia and of liberal 
institutions at the same time. She professes to be 
the latter, but is in the eyes of Europe the former. 
At Frankfort, in Lombardy, before Vienna, and at 
Kremsier, her words and her acts are at variance. 
She talks of 1815 when all the world are preparing 
for 1850. Within her own dominions all is still 
confusion; Hungary in arms, Croatia dissatisfied, 
Lombardy burning with revenge, Venice still 
holding out, and not one of the many questions 
which distract the heterogeneous mass nearer a 
settlement than the day after Metternich’s flight. 
The late Emperor abdicated without leaving any 
regret behind him, and the present Emperor 
succeeds without showing any signs of retrieving 
the lost popularity of his family. 

It may be painful to England to see her old and 
powerful ally reduced to these straights,—to see 
her repudiated by Germany, hated by Italy, mor¬ 
tified by the assistance of Russia, and conquered 
by the rebellion of Hungary. But deplorable as 
her conduct is, she has brought it on herself: 


55 


England may regret her perversity, but cannot 
retrieve her distress. She has deserted Turkey, 
connived at Prussian ambition on the Danube, and 
sacrificed the best interests of Germany to please 
her northern ally. She has not only deserted her 
post, but betrayed her trust; and, instead of pro¬ 
testing against the designs of Russia, on the Walla- 
chian-Moldavian Principalities, she has beckoned 
the invader’s army on to trample down the privi¬ 
leges of a neutral power. What Austria has lost, 
Prussia has gained; and in her strength we must 
now seek that bulwark against Russian ambition 
which the Austrian Empire hitherto opposed. 

Events succeed each other so rapidly, that what 
are surmises to-day may be realities to-morrow ; or 
a re-action may take place which will for a time 
delay the fulfilment of my anticipations; but come 
what will, there is no returning to the status ante 
1848. The Revolution of Vienna draws an im¬ 
passable line between the new and old order of 
things: no rallying point is left to the obsolete 
principles of absolutism; no retreat left to those 
who have involuntarily been carried away by the 
stream. 

In conclusion, I repeat that liberal institutions 
cannot exist in Central Italy as long as the spiritual 
and temporal power are united in the person of 
the Pope; that the separation of the temporal and 
spiritual power would be advantageous alike to the 
Italian people and the general interests of the 
Catholic Church; that this change may be effected 


56 



in Rome without endangering the tranquillity of 
the neighbouring states ; and, lastly, that whatever 
may be the immediate result of the French expedi-' 
tion, now on its way to Civita Vecchia, no settle¬ 
ment can be lasting which does not embrace this 
desirable object. 


FINIS. 


LONDON : 

PRINTED BY T. IiRETTELL, RUPERT STREET, IIAYMARKET. 


LB S 20 


























s 










































































































































neutral,2,ng agent; M 

Treatment Date: f)£C 

PreservationTechi 

A WORLD L !i A t°ffi ,N PAp ^ pi 

”1 Thomson Pa* Dri 
Oran b e rry Township, F 
( 724 ) 779-2111 























































